tv [untitled] January 1, 2012 8:31pm-9:01pm PST
>> that is an excellent question. the ceqa findings covers all of the implementation plans for the america's cup. there summarized and included within the eir. even though they are evolving, they are living documents each that will incorporate best practices. among those, they will respond to the performance requirements and all the mitigation measures you are proving as part of these actions. those are covered. with respect to the national park service and the national environmental protection act, the environment and review process, the ceqa equivalent they have to go through, that is ongoing and will be flowing through the documents in the spring. they have similar but somewhat different standards for their review. that information from the eir
that is common to what needs to get covered gets picked up, and additional changes according to their interpretation of nepa will play out in those documents. for your purposes today, you are using the final eir as the basis of your action, and i have been advised by the city attorney that i do not need to walk you through all of these revisions. they are pretty much technical revisions to memorialize properly the scope of the product that i described to you that you are proving today, and we have caught some typos and editorial errors that we would like to correct. i am advised that on that basis, we can go ahead with that on the basis of your action today. i would also like to acknowledge the city attorney's office in general as part of the unsung heroes of this effort.
the entire legal team has been working on some aspect of the america's cup, but you would not have the dda in front of you. and the land use team has been instrumental on getting the planning department and the port through this process, so kudos to them. >> we are adopting the sub- alternatives when we adopt this? is that correct? >> yes, it is complicated, but for environment and impact coverage purposes, yes. we are calling it the project, just the simple about it, because it blends all of these pieces. >> i did have one minor question from the staff reports.
there is reference to it implementing a program to protect against sea level rise so the affordable have a community facility district to be formed. i am not sure what the committee phyllis diller the district is. -- i am not sure what the community facility district is. >> it is often formed under the laws of the state. it is a special tax district that is usually approved by property owners for specific pieces of property to handle specific infrastructure or the service in need of those properties. in this case, it would be obligating future tax holders -- taxpayers of these two sites to pay for the maintenance of the works. >> ok, thank you. and the other question? >> sorry, i was thinking ahead.
the port staff has been thinking about how we address sea level rise and contemplating the additional cost in the future and that there will have to be some mechanism where property owners decide to tax themselves to pay for those improvements. it is putting in their anticipation of some future aspect of the sea level rise. >> thank you. i also wanted to move to amend resolution 180, the result calls that is specific about authorizing the executive director to reimburse a certain amount. i think given what we heard today, acknowledging a bit of the fluidity with this, and no doubt additional analysis is going to be performed, that would consider removing that particular clause from the
resolution. i would remove that amendment. >> second. >> commissioners, if i may, there are a couple of other technical corrections to the resolution that i could introduce at a later time. >> thank you. >> should i read the names for the record now? i am sorry, i spoke out of turn. i have three changes, one which i believe was superseded by the motion that commissioner lazarus made. page 36, resolution 1180, the second resolve calls, staff proposes leaving the phrase in the transactions that they incorporate business terms and replacing that phrase, a copy of which is on file with the port
commission secretary substantially on the terms, and then after the dates of december 16, 2011, add the phrase, "as amended by the staff presentation at the meeting." i have a change and resolve clause 5 that was struck. and then resolve call 6, towards the end of that, the fourth line down, there was a phrase that says, "amended or other modifications to the venue leases." we propose striking "venue leases" because that is subject to approval. and the second to the last line, "parties and obligations they are in," and striking out "they are in" and adding "under dda." >> should that come from one of us or is that sufficient to be read and?
>> or are there any other amendments? >> while we are at it. [laughter] >> there are two minor technical changes to 1179. they are not substantive, but one of them -- let me find it, a reference to a motion no. from the planning commission that does not have to be included in that. i would propose the deletion of that. i am trying to find a resolution itself, page 31. wonderful. we can delete the reference to the motion no., after the ceqa guidelines. in a couple of places, we referred to the mitigation monitoring program as exhibit 1.
it is referred correctly and one incident, but we did not do that consistently in the other clauses, so we'd like to correct that. >> it would be the bottom "whereas" calls. >> she would like to read b1, b2, b3. >> thank you. >> madam chair, i would move on the amendment resolution as amended. >> thank you. commissioners, are there any other questions or comments? >> very briefly, also, i will put in my thanks both to the staff, who has gone above and beyond to meet these tight deadlines on a very significant project. i want to thank the public for
all of their engagement and participation. i think we are better off for having had that participation. i think one of the things that is demonstrated in this is the ongoing commitment to ensuring that concerns are heard. this will be one of the most well thought out projects and efforts, and that hopefully will become a model of stewardship on seven different levels, particularly environmental areas -- on somebody different levels, particularly environmental areas, best practices with these large events, and many of these issues have been thought through, so i want to throw in my thanks to the public for raising these issues and all of the staff that have gone above and beyond, so thank you. >> commissioner? >> i think i would echo what the commissioner said. i have already asked all my
questions in closed session. >> ok, i think we are ready to vote. i need to echo my fellow commissioners and thanks to a dream team, the port team, the planning team, the maersk team, and the public. -- the mayor's team, and the public. as a much work has been pulled off in such a short time and it will be so beneficial to the city and county of san francisco. thank you all for your hard work. all in favor? >> aye. >> resolution 1170 9and 1180 have been approved as amended -- 1179 and 1180 have been approved as [as. itapplause] >> commissioners, if you indulge me for 30 seconds. if you could please join me in thanking the project manager,
jonathan, beautiful words, which just says the america's cup is a special project transcending any one expertise of port staff, including development, finance, real estate, legal, engineering, maintenance, etc., but it took a very special project manager to pull it off, and that is brad, so thank you to brad. [applause] >> so, we could ask if you want to handle the ifp. we could go without staff presentation on that and that would conclude this section of the agenda. we could take a break, which every your preference. bu>> let's finish this section.
>> you heard the presentation just before, but jonathan would love to tell you more, if you like, or we could go straight into your questions. do you have a preference, madame president? >> we have heard about it, so unless jonathan wants to quickly summarize and then go to questions? >> we have the map of the port property on the screen. this is a map that shows all of the port property. the resolution in front of you is specifically to form an overall i f p district that would run through all of the port property. essentially it is a resolution from the board of supervisors to essentially say we will contemplate this. it does not put anything into effect at this point. we have also identified a number of product areas that include
the three different flavors of product areas, the normal waterfront project area for the development site, special project areas, but the america's cup, a, b, c, and tea. and-and it -- and then enhanced pier 70 projects. we're not asking for your approval at this point because it will be more specific ordinances that have to be advanced to the board of supervisors that we will bring to you for approval before doing that. this is a very important step both for filling our commitments on the the agreement, but also this is a financing tool that we have been contemplating over six years. the benefits that would bring to the city back to the waterfront, to improve the waterfront further still for people. >> thank you.
is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners? >> i just want to understand, when you say it permits, there is property tax, and there is the criminal property tax. what goes into the -- -- there is incremental property tax. what goes into that? >> it is specifically a tax to leaseholders on port properties. it really only comes into play when there is a long-term lease. any time we take a piece of property currently in short term lease and put it into a long- term reeslease with improvement value, new taxes are generated. >> since there is no tax on these and there is to submit and there is new property tax, the entire amount has been part of
this revenue? >> that is correct. >> the existing property tax would be the increased value of the property tax that would be part of the revenue? is that correct? >> that is correct, and also wanted to point out this is reforming the district on the port property. that would allow less, only in regard to where we could spend the money. creating the district would allow us when there are specific product areas later, when there are tax increments to be spend, these are the locations. these are the port properties where we could spend them. >> 8 washington is the example project, all of that would accrue? >> that is correct. >> it will accrue, but some goes to the state and city, according to law. that a percentage, a formula?
>> yes. >> do we know what percentage comes back to the port? >> we're waiting for the comptroller to confirm that with us. when we get to more specific numbers, we will be back, but the first that is to get the city to noticed the district. >> that is part of the repayment source. >> yes, for the project that we just heard. b>> each time that you bring a new project area, there are specific financial terms, whether they are constructed or funded through the project, but also seeking the board of supervisors's permission each time which property tax can be diverted. that will be a discussion with city, staff, and policymakers. >> jonathan, how did staff reached the number of the
projected 45-years tax? >> the 45 limit is the provision of state law. >> great, thank you. >> any other questions? >> one more. when you request the ifd, is there some projection that you have to show of what you think the incremental tax will do to support the bond issue? >> that is correct. >> you have to show their real sufficient revenue coming in to repay? >> for each product area that will at -- for each project area, that will identify at minimum the tax increment expected and the bonding capacity therein, and the sources of the project. at any particular ratio required? >> particular ratio? >> for debt repayment.
and i think it changes depending on the likely projections of the market. we have to put together a credible plan. >> in other words there is no minimal requirement is what i am asking? >> it depends on the debt vehicle that we use what to read it -- what the minimum requirements will be, and we're still exploring that. >> you intend to come back with an action item fairly soon, 2012? >> we will come back. this is just a notice. we will come back for the enabling master device, and likely product areas associated with projects that are currently heading towards approvals, but the america's cup that we just heard. >> any other comments or questions? thank you, jonathan. we look forward to the next revision or draft of the ifp. so i think we should take
recess. i would like to ask the public to bear with us. we have been at this since 9:00 this morning. we need to take a quick break. 20 minutes? 15-20 minutes. and we will be right back. >> item 10a request approval of the 34th america's cup and james r. herman cruise terminal and northeast wharf plaza tenant relocation plan san francisco, california. request approval. >> use in the assistant deputy
director of real estate for the board of san francisco. now that we had the america's cup project, the convergence and the overlap of these two projects with respect to time schedules in their shared disabilities has necessitated the need for the port to plan for the relocation of tenants that currently occupy the port space. in advance preparation for these projects, the port has been in close communication with the prospective tenants by providing information and arranging for tenants to be informed of the status of these projects. the california relocation assistance law requires the commission to adopt a relocation plan, including a relocation
assistance program, which includes reimbursement of relocation costs. as a result, the port hired a real estate services firm specializing in the relocation process to draft a real cushion plan for the america's cup projects, -- a relocation plan for the america's cup project, which is described in the eir. perhaps most importantly, this speaks to the relocation assistance program. the relocation assistance program as described in the plan to assist displaced tenants with alternative locations. at the tenants' option, they can deal eligible for a payment for moving costs were affixed -- or
a fixed payment of $220,000, the average net earnings of the business. eligible tenants must submit their claim within 18 months of their move. the plan also establishes an appeals process should a displaced tenant have a grievance. the tenant can appeal to the appeals court, which is an established entity. the estimated total relocation costs for both of these projects is approximately $1.8 million. which includes a 20% contingency. regarding ceqa, a tenant relocation requirements, including the impact of the
tenant relocations was included in the eir. i recommend the port adoption of resolutions recommending the terminal project and resolution and 1179, ceqa findings for the 34th america's cup project, including findings that provide port commission approval of the plan. also, as required, on november 14, 2011, the poor to publish the draft relocation plan -- the port published the draft relocation plan that was made available with a 30-day public comment period. to date, we have received one letter which the port commission has responded to. we recommend the adoption of the resolutions, including the draft recommendation plan.
in resolution 1181, for the pier 27 james r. herman northeast were for -- wharf plaza project and the america's cup project. that concludes my presentation. i will also say our consultant is also here for any technical relocation law questions. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> is there second? >> there is a second. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioners? commissioner lazarus: is there a definition of an eligible tenant? all longer-term lease as opposed
to month to month? >> any tenant affected by the project is an eligible tenant. anybody affected by the project. so. >> i guess currently now, we are going to see it later if tenants found a location. as far as execution of this, how far are you identifying where people can go? >> we are well always -- aways. with identified relocation sites. we've done pre-emptive work. we hope to relocate 75% to 80%, probably. one of the issues is geographically a lot of the space they will be moving from is from the northern waterfront to the southern water fraught --
waterfront. there are tenants that need to be on the northern waterfronts. for some, the no. waterfront is the only place they can be, and you know, some of those tenants, mainly storage tense, we may not be able to accommodate. we have office space. we are going to be lean on shelf space. >> and so far -- working with tenants, we have not heard negative reactions? >> correct. >>we're very good -- we have a very good history with relocating tenants. with the ball park project. pier 1, explorator andium. -- exploratorium.
we stay in close contact with our tenants and that seems to be the right formula. >> questions? >> in terms of the cost estimates, as a requirement for reasonable expenses as opposed to reimbursement, do we have any way of analyzing the expenses, confirming whether they are reasonable or not? >> well, these are estimates that actually came from a consultant. we got the same estimates it from our internal analysis. >> i guess we're under a scenario where we would have to reimburse a tenant for their "reasonable" expenses. who makes that determination? if the tenedos overboard -- if a
tenant goes overboard in their costs, what would we fall on with that? >> they have to prove their expenses, and we would go through those expensive and fine them to be reasonable or unreasonable. if they were unreasonable, we might approve some, not all. in this is where we have a grievance that could actually go to the relocation board, which is an active part of the rent control board in san francisco. >> any other questions or comments? thank you. all in favor? >> aye. >> motion approved. >> item 10 b -- a presentation for a zero waste policy including plastic bottles, plastic food where, and pollution.
>> good afternoon, commission. i'm here to talk about the proposed policy for zero waste events and activities. the primary goal is to make sure that food waste is better generated at events and to protect marine wildlife. there is a long history of concern. uygur more of this than ever. a goes back to -- we hear more of this than ever. it goes back to the six-back rains, and today we hereabouts -- we hear about promotional events. we also have a representative from the department of the environment. trying to take the lead and in some of the directions they set out for us.